Shrewsbury & Atcham
Borough Council

1. MINUTES - 7^th December 2004

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee held on 7^th December 2004 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman.

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTES

3. 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.

4. APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT

To consider the schedule of applications for development submitted by the Development Control Manager.

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.

5. SHREWSBURY SCHOOL, KINGSLAND, SHREWSBURY

To consider the report of the Development Control Manager.

Recommendation:

To approve the amended plans as an amendment to the existing planning permission 03/0771/F.

6. 40 LONGNER STREET, SHREWSBURY

To consider the report of the Development Control Manager.

Recommendation:

That the drawings received on the 12^th November 2004 be accepted as an amendment to the planning permission 03/0943/F approved on the 20^th April 2004 subject to the satisfactory completion of an associated Section 106 undertaking.

7. TOWN CENTRE FLAG ADVERTISING SCHEME

To consider the report of the Development Control Manager.

Recommendation:

That approval be granted for the Summer Season and Britain in Bloom flag advertisements for the period set out in paragraph 3.1 and subject to the terms of approval set out in the report dated 18^th February 2003.

8. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE PROCEDURE RULES

To consider the report of the Development Control Manager.

Recommendation:

1. That the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee and Planning Committee Procedure Rules be amended as set out in the report; and,
2. That the amendments to the Procedure Rules be referred to the Standards Committee for consideration.

9. THE GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE TO MAKING THE PLANNING SYSTEM ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE: OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

To consider the report of the Development Control Manager.

Recommendation:

That the report be noted.

10. 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:

Land between Preston Gubbals Lane and Windsor Lane, Bomere Heath (Pool Meadow) - various references

Application for costs by Jennings Homes against the Council for refusing an application which subsequently went to an appeal and then later approving an identical application which resulted in abortive costs in the preparation of the appeal.

Decision: A full award of costs was made against the council based on the following facts:

1.The application ref 03/0724/VAR received was refused, against officer recommendation, on the grounds of the lack of a flood risk assessment for the site. The committee report indicated that the site was acceptable for development in principle and no reference was made to the loss of open space or PPG17. A subsequent appeal was allowed on the 20th April 2004

2. Another variation application 03/1255/VAR was submitted, dated September 2003, with full Environment Agency support, but refused, contrary to officer recommendation, on the grounds of the loss of open space contrary to policy HS3 and PPG17 (this was a new ground not raised as a factor in the first application).

3. A reserved matters application for an access was refused on the16th December 2003 on the grounds that the development would result in the loss of open space and an appeal submitted.

4. Two duplicate planning applications, dated November 2003, were submitted for 16 dwellings and access road after prior discussions with the Environment Agency and Planning Officers and both refused on 3 February 2004; the reason was the loss of open space notwithstanding that the officer report confirmed that the proposal conformed to local and national planning policy on open space issues. The costs claim relates to one of these refusals.

5. The appellants asked the council to substantiate the reason for refusal but were not able to do so thus consultants reports were initiated to cover potential issues that might be raised relating to ecology.

6. The council accepted that in the light of the appeal decision dated 20 April 2004, and after taking counsels opinion, that they could not defend the refusal and a report was taken to members and agreed on the 25th May 2004. Another application was invited from the applicants, 04/0781/F, and this was approved on the 29th June 2004.

7. The Secretary of State noted that the costs application was made on the basis that the council acted unreasonably in refusing the appeal application at the outset. The council had also stated that it should have included reasons relating to the loss of open space in the decision. The appeal statement also referred to the loss of open space and conflict with HS3 even though the previous Inspector had agreed that the principle of housing on the site was acceptable.

8. Finally the council did not seek to proceed to defend the appeal with reference to PPG17 and the inference was that the Council were unable to substantiate the reasons for refusal.

In conclusion, paragraph 8 of costs circular 8/93 advises that in any appeal proceedings planning authorities will be expected to provide evidence to substantiate each refusal reason. In this case the Council's change of stance, by approving the resubmitted application, confirmed that they had no sustainable case on the appeal and subsequently the appellant had incurred unnecessary expense in preparing partly for the appeal. A full award of costs was therefore appropriate.

Land at the rear of Radbrook College, Shrewsbury - Outline application for the erection of 8 dwellings and the formation of an access road after demolition of 2 dwellings on Amber Hill. Ref 04/0270/O.

Decision: Appeal dismissed 16th December 2004

Summary:
The key issues were the effect of the proposal on highway safety and the residential amenity of neighbours. On the access issues the principle of housing was acceptable but the objections on grounds of highway safety were not persuasive as the highway authority were happy with the proposal. On the disturbance issue this was also not accepted by the Inspector who considered that the extra noise and disturbance would be assimilated by the existing noise levels. The Inspector was concerned however with the low density of the scheme and this conflicted with Government advice on the best use of previously developed land. A density of 9 dwellings per hectare was unacceptably low and no exceptional circumstances were put forward which would support such a low density.

Land at Kinton House, Nesscliffe - Outline application for one detached dwelling. Ref 04/0190/O

Decision: Appeal dismissed 16th December 2004

Summary:
The key issue in this appeal was whether the proposal accords with the development plan policy to protect the character and appearance of the countryside. The Inspector considered that Kinton was not a village identified in the Local Plan for growth but Kinton was an HS4 settlement were limited housing could be acceptable under certain situations; in particular the site should be wholly in the settlement. This site however was on the periphery with no road frontage and the built form and bulk of any dwelling together with the associated domestic paraphenalia would significantly change the character and appearance of the area. It would have an urbanising effect, extending the built form of the village into open countryside.

Land to rear of Moreton Cottages, Coleham, Shrewsbury - Erection of 3, 2 bed dwellings. Ref04/0342/F

Decision: Appeal dismissed 17th December 2004

Summary:
The key issues in this case were the impact of the development on the conservation area; on the privacy of neighbours and highway safety. The detailed designs were poor and did not reflect the wealth of architectural detail of the locality. The upper floor windows would cause overlooking of some of the neighbours resulting in a loss of privacy. The access was through a narrow entrance and the proposed scheme would generate more movements than the existing garages which could cause cars to reverse into the highway. The site is sustainable and would be a more efficient use of land but being hemmed in to the rear of frontage development with a substandard access made the scheme unacceptable.

The Guildhall
Shrewsbury
23^rd December 2004

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