Shrewsbury & Atcham
Borough Council

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.

1. 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.
2. 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 Planning Services 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 - 13^th September 2005

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee held on 13^th September 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 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.

To consider a report of the Planning Services Manager.

That the revised plans be accepted and approved as an amendment to Planning Permission 04/1213/F

To consider a report of the Head of Development Control.

That the drawings received on the 5^th September 2005 and 7^th September 2005, be accepted as an amendment to the planning permission 05/0054/F approved on the 18^th March 2005.

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: Land adjacent to 50 Roman Road, Shrewsbury – erection of a detached dwelling with detached garage to include siting and means of access Ref: 05/0430/O

Decision: Appeal Dismissed 12^th September 2005

Summary: The main issue in this case was the effect on Green Space identified in the Local Plan. The appeal site falls wholly within the Green Space. It has an open aspect. Although there is no public access the valley floor including the site is a significant area of Green Space which should not be reduced. It is logical that the whole valley floor should be retained as Green Space at its wider points as well as its narrower points. Although a dwelling would be partially screened by vegetation, it would be visible from Roman Road, pavement and cycle lane and from public open space to south and gardens to west and the existing gap between houses on Roman Road would be significantly reduced. The proposal would be an intrusion into the Green Space and would be contrary to Policies HS2 and LNC3.

Site: Cane & Wicker, Hartley Business Centre, 272-284 Monkmoor Road – erection of an 18, monopole with 6 antennae, radio dish and ancillary cabin and equipment Ref: 04/1391/F

Decision: Appeal Dismissed 20^th September 2005

Summary: the main issue was the effect on the character and appearance of the area. There is an existing 15m high mast at the front of this industrial site (erected under permitted development) which is not unduly intrusive. However, the proposal with an overall height of almost 21m would tower over adjacent buildings forming a very prominent and intrusive feature from many aspects not least from Monkmoor Road and nearby dwellings. The coverage from this site would well exceed the identified cell search area and there appears to be no examination as to whether coverage could be achieved from smaller installations at more than one location. The planning system is not in place to determine health safeguards, however the perceived fear from a mast in such close proximity can be material. The proposal would cause serious harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Site: 2 Willowray Cottages, Shepherds Lane, Bicton Heath – erection of two storey extension with balcony and new roof extension to garage with external steps Ref: 05/0154/F.

Decision: Split – side extension dismissed, 2 storey and pitched roof over garage allowed 15^th September 2005.

Summary: This application was refused contrary to Officer recommendation. The side extension amounts to a significant addition that would respect neither the scale nor the character of the existing dwelling contrary to Policy GP4. The balcony of the 2 storey extension was omitted in favour of flat safety railings. Any views over adjacent property would be oblique with no significant loss of privacy. It would not be seen as overbearing. Existing flat roof on the garage is discordant in street scene. The proposed roof would be largely screened by trees and shrubs and would not create an overly dominant feature and would not harm the character and appearance of the area.

Site: 1 Ashford Park, Pontesbury – erection of single attached garage and rear porch following conversion of existing garage to study Ref: 05/0475/F

Decision: Appeal Allowed 8^th September 2005

Summary: This application was refused contrary to Officer recommendation. The main issue was the effect on the amenities of the occupiers of 3 Ashford Park. The roof could have been designed to take more account of the objections. However, no significant loss of light or overbearing effect would occur due to the difference in levels, the gap between the window and the gable end and the height of the window.

Site: Land rear of 70 Sundorne Road, Shrewsbury – erection of 4 dwellings with integral garages Ref: 05/0003/O

Decision: Appeal Dismissed 15^th September 2005

Summary: This application was refused contrary to Officer recommendation. The main issue was the effect on the character and appearance of the area and the effects on the existing and future occupiers through overlooking. Lesley Owen Way has a spacious character due to siting in relation to the road and the gaps above the garages. The proposal with 2m between each dwelling would be very different to the surrounding area and would appear overly cramped. The layout combined with the changing levels would result in some limited overlooking, window to window. As 70 Sundorne Road is close to joint boundary there would be significant overlooking of the gardens of the proposed dwellings. Plot 1 is close to side boundary and projects 5m beyond rear of 2 Lesley Owen Way. This would have an unacceptably overbearing impact. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that the proposal would present any greater threat to highway safety.

Site: Burnell House, Chavel, Ford – erection of two dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling and formation of new vehicular access Ref: 05/0334/O

Decision: Appeal Dismissed 20^th September 2005

Summary: The main issue was the impact on the character and appearance of the settlement of Chavel. The site lies wholly within the settlement of Chavel defined by the boundary hedge and the development would not protrude into the open countryside. It would however detract from the space and openness of the layout of the existing housing filling almost the whole width of this prominent site at the entrance to the settlement. The dwellings would detract from and fail to harmonise with the character of the settlement. Although previously used land Planning Policy Guidance makes it clear that this does not mean the whole site should be redeveloped.

Site: Land at 9 Swift Close, Shrewsbury – proposal to fell 3 oak trees Ref: 04/1627/TPO

Decision: Appeal Dismissed 20^th September 2005

Summary: The trees have dense healthy crowns with little dead wood. There is no evidence that the structural safety of the house or garage is compromised. The level of damage, even if the trees are implicated, is insufficient to justify removing three healthy trees which have potentially long safe lives. The trees provide significant public amenity value to the Sundorne Meadows area.

Site: 19 Kennedy Road, Shrewsbury – proposal to fell two Lawson’s Cypress trees.

Decision: Appeal Allowed subject to replanting 22^nd September 2005 Ref: 05/0148/TPO

Summary: the trees grow together to form one canopy to the front of the house. The trees make a positive contribution to the amenity of the area. They shade, dominate and reduce light levels to this part of the house and drive but the amount of shade and reduction of light could not be considered excessive. One tree is deteriorating in condition and upper branches are increasingly susceptible to further storm damage. Surgery could prevent this but would introduce high maintenance which is an unacceptable solution. Removal of both trees followed by replanting is justified on grounds of amenity and continuity of tree cover within this part of the conservation area.

The Guildhall

Shrewsbury

3^rd October 2005