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.

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:

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 additional letters before return to members.

1. MINUTES - 22^nd February 2005

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee held on 22^nd February 2005 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 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.

To consider the report of the Development Control Manager.

To support the Environment Agency's objections to planning permission 04/1846/F.

To consider the report of the Development Control Manager.

That in light of BT's further comments and recognising that payphones cannot be retained solely for emergency use, it is recommended that no objection be raised to the removal of the Albrighton payphone.

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

Site at Ebrey Wood, Astley, Near Shrewsbury - Erection of a multi-purpose agricultural building. Ref 04/0498/F

Decision: Appeal dismissed 14 February 2005

Summary: The key issue in this case was the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. The materials size and impact of the structure were of an industrial nature and the Inspector had concerns regarding the size compared to the area of the holding which was quite small. Although the structure would be partly screened its height and footprint, in an isolated location made it unduly prominent and unacceptable. Application refused by members contrary to officer recommendation of approval.

Land at Wroxeter Vineyard, Wroxeter, Shrewsbury - Erection of a dwelling Ref 04/0309/O.

Decision: Appeal dismissed 15 February 2005

Summary: The key issues in this case were the effect of the proposal on national and local policies relating to development in the countryside and on sustainable development policies. The site was not in a policy HS4 settlement and as such , due to its location to the rear of the exisiting frontage dwellings would appear as an outward extension of the village. The recent permission for holiday chalets were approved under different policies and were linked to agricultural diversification where planning policies are slightly more permissive. The bottling plant permission on the same site has expired but again was approved in line with the applicants agricultural enterprise. Overall, therefore the extension development into the countryside would be of material harm to the aims of the development plan and national planning policies. In addition there were concerns that the occupier of the dwelling would be dependent on the use of a car for everyday needs due to the lack of adequate service provision in the village.

The Guildhall

Shrewsbury

7^th March 2005

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