Contact Us

Address:

The Guildhall
Frankwell Quay
Shrewsbury
SY3 8HQ

Telephone:

01743 281000

email:

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE

Meeting to be held in the Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Frankwell Quay, Shrewsbury on Tuesday, 24^th May 2005 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: Bebb, Mrs Brennand, Bushell, Mrs Chaplin, Freestone, R. Jones, Owen, Mrs Parsons, Price, Rees, Thurston, Townsend, Ms Wild and Mrs Williams

Substitutes: Councillors Mrs Allaway, Cooke, Mrs Jones and Kenny

(Subject to confirmation at Annual Council on 19^th May 2005)

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:

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

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;

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:

the Committee shall specify as fully as possible the proposed grounds for refusal;

the Solicitor in conjunction with the Planning Services Manager shall be asked to consider whether any of the grounds for refusal are lawful and sustainable;

If one or more grounds for refusal are lawful and sustainable the application shall be refused on the grounds stated;

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.

AGENDA

1. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN

2. APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN

3. WELCOME TO NEW MEMBERS

4. MINUTES - 26^th April 2005

Recommendation:

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee held on 26^th April 2005 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman.

5. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTES

6. 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.

7. APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT



To consider the schedule of applications for development submitted by the Planning Services Manager.

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

8. LAND AT SUTTON LANE, SHREWSBURY

To consider the report of the Planning Services Manager.

Recommendation:

That the amended house type to 18, 2 bed apartments; 6, 2 bed houses; 6, 3 bed houses and 8, 4 bed houses be accepted to the planning permission 04/0389/F and the S106 be amended accordingly

9. PLOT 1, MANOR PARK, MAIN ROAD, PONTESBURY

To consider the report of the Planning Services Manager.

Recommendation:

That the drawings received on the 13^th April 2005 be accepted as an amendment to the planning permission 05/0248/F approved on the 6^th April 2005.

10. LAND AT THE OAKS, NESSCLIFFE



To consider the report of the Planning Services Manager.

Recommendation:

That the amended fencing proposed for the patio and boundary fence be approved as set out on drawing HL/1001 Revision X received on the 12^th May 2005.

11. 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:

Site: Woodside, Fords Heath, Shrewsbury - Erection of a single storey rear extension Ref 04/1050/F

Decision: Appeal dismissed 21 April 2005.

Summary: The Inspector considered that the size of the extension was such that it was only a 12% increase in the floorspace of the dwelling and bearing in mind the previous large extensions which effectively doubled the size of the property this further element was minor in nature. He also referred to the fact that the Council had no written policy on the 70% guideline figure and the Local Plan referred to extensions being in scale and character with the existing property not the original.

Site: Wildes Plant Hire, Station Road, Dorrington - Change of use of land to storage yard for plant. Ref 04/774/F.

Decision: Appeal dismissed 21 April 2005.

Summary: The key issue in this case was the effect of the development on highway safety. The site was currently being used for storage of commercial vehicles and plant. The Inspector considered it unacceptable to permit the further use of the site if it resulted in a material increase in the usage of Station Road. However it was stated by the appellant that the types of vehicles and plant using this area had a low frequency of use but from the evidence on site it was apparent that the majority of the site was used by smaller non agricultural items and was therefore an integral part of the whole site. On this basis it was considered that a temporary permission for 2 years to enable the Highways Authority to monitor the traffic flows was acceptable. The full effects of the extra land could then be properly assessed.

Site: 29 Highfields, Shrewsbury – Crown reduce one Ash tree by 60% and fell one Ash tree. Ref: 04/0883/TPO

Decision: Split Decision (part allowed/part dismissed) 29^th April 2005

Summary: The key issue in this case was the impact of the proposed works on the trees’ contribution to the amenity of the local area. The Inspector noted that both trees provided reasonable public amenity with Tree 1 being the more visually dominant. Tree 2 had a significant defect caused by a wound to its stem causing moderate risk of stem snapping. If Tree 1 was removed, increased exposure would significantly increase that risk to Tree 2. Removal of Tree 2 would allow better growth for Tree 1 and due to its lesser amenity value it may be considered as good management. As the more prominent, tree No.1 should be retained.

Site: Land at the Junction of Battlefield Road and Featherbed Lane, Shrewsbury – Erection of 2 buildings (comprising up to 7 retail units in total), erection of a restaurant and drive through restaurant, construction of new vehicular accesses, internal roadway, and improvement works to existing water courses. Ref 04/1073/F

Decision: Appeal dismissed 11^th May 2005

Summary: The main issues in this case were (1) whether there is a need for the scale of retail floorspace proposed, (2) Whether there is any sequentially preferred site for the development, and (3) the weight to be given to the benefits of the scheme.

Need – the Inspector noted that there are a number of commitments for retail development (including Dunedin Phase 1, Tesco, Sainsbury extension and Charlies). He also noted that there is a substantial group of retail warehouses on the north and south sides of Shrewsbury with 4 national DIY retailers being represented among other traders. Some of the businesses showing interest in the proposal would be simply relocating from other premises in the town. There is not a need for the scale of retailing proposed. The proposal conflicts with objectives of resisting out of town retailing. The applicant failed to demonstrate need.

Sequential – There are 2 possible town centre sites available being Dunedin Phase 1 and Telephone House. Dunedin site is not suitable for retail warehouse operators as they would not be able to pay high town centre rents. Telephone House site is not a prime site and is much smaller than appeal site however, an element of the proposal could be located on this site. Applicant did not provide evidence to show that the same is not true for the 2 restaurants. The applicant failed to demonstrate adequate use of the sequential approach.

Other Benefits – benefits in terms of improvement to townscape, creation of jobs ecological benefits and proximity to public transport (sustainability) as a whole are substantial.

The Inspector concluded that the town centre strategy does not preclude out of centre development and the vitality and viability of the town centre would not suffer. However there is no need for a scheme with the amount of retail floorspace proposed and adequate use of the sequential approach has not been

The Guildhall, Shrewsbury

16/05/05

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