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 - 11^th October 2005

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee held on 11^th October 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 proposed amendments shown on the unreferenced floor plans received on the 7^th October 2005 be accepted and approved.

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: 31 Harley Road, Cressage – erection of a demountable building as games room/garden furniture winter store following demolition of existing garden shed and oil tank Ref: 05/0643/F

Decision: Appeal dismissed 6^th October 2005

Summary: The neighbouring property is set lower than the appeal site and the existing flank wall already has an overbearing effect on it. The proposed building close to the rear extension would effectively extend the built-up flank to almost 20m adding to the overbearing effect and visual impact as seen from the rear of the adjacent property and its garden. There is little scope for softening the appearance by planting within the land under the applicant's control. Conclude that the development would have an overbearing effect harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of the adjoining dwelling.

Site: Sundorne Retail Park, Arlington Way, Shrewsbury – erect and display 5 internally illuminated 6-sheet lightboxes on new columns Ref: 05/0812/ADV

Decision: Appeal dismissed 11^th October 2005

Summary: The main issue was whether the signs would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The retail park is characterised by large retail sheds with imposing neo-classical facades set back behind a large open car parking area. The car parks are pleasantly landscaped with considerable number of ornamental trees lighting columns and occasional groups of flagpoles. This creates a pleasant environment far from the bleak, soulless outlook suggested by the Appellant. The introduction of the proposals would be entirely out of place and being fastened to columns would accentuate their presence and incongruity, intruding into the landscape in a most harmful way.

Site: Timberline, Old Coleham, Shrewsbury – erection of 2 and 3 storey blocks to provide 21 dwellings with vehicular access, landscaping and footbridge over the Reabrook following removal of existing commercial buildings – appeal is against Condition 12 which required a safe dry access route to be provided as the site is in an area at risk from flooding Ref: 04/1429/F.

Decision: Appeal dismissed 11^th October 2005

Summary: The main issue was whether the condition in dispute is necessary in the interests of public safety. A dry access passing under adjacent railway arches was proposed as part of the application but Network Rails financial requirements are according to the appellant, likely to result in the scheme becoming unviable. There is unlikely to be any realistic alternative route available. The Environment Agency's lack of outright objection to the development was on the basis that dry access could be secured. It is accepted that there would be no risk of flooding to the habitable accommodation itself or the raised walkways due to the finished floor levels proposed. However the Inspector could not accept the appellant's suggestion that the absence of a dry access route would not significantly increase the demands of the emergency services. The risk of residents requiring medical care etc would, if anything, increase during a flood. Attempts by the emergency services to gain access would put their personnel at risk and divert resources away from other areas. Conclude that the condition is necessary in the interests of public safety. A financial contribution as an alternative suggested by the appellant would not overcome the identified harm.

Site: Land at 12 Porthill Gardens, Shrewsbury – Erection of a single detached dwelling Ref: 05/0528/O.

Decision: Appeal dismissed 26^th October 2005

Summary: The main issues were a) the effect on the character of the area through its impact on the trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order and b) whether a satisfactory living environment would be achieved for the occupiers of the proposed dwelling having regard to the trees. A) the protected red oak has developed into a mature specimen of significant stature and makes a positive contribution to the street scene. It may not be the most appropriate tree in a domestic situation but it has considerable amenity value and its removal would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. The Inspector was satisfied that no significant harm would be caused to the remaining protected trees. B) the new dwelling would have south easterly aspect to the rear and whilst design is reserved for later approval the occupants would wish to capitalise on that aspect. However, the canopies of the remaining trees extend across the full width of the plot and in very close proximity to the rear of the dwelling. They would cast shade severely curtailing sunlight through most of the day. Other nuisances would include leaf/branch fall, insect/bird droppings, blocked gutters etc. The occupiers are likely to exert considerable pressure on the Council for removal of further protected trees. An unsatisfactory living environment will result.

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.

Exempt reports are not available to the public

To consider the exempt report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Monitoring Officer) and Planning Services Manager.

The Guildhall

Shrewsbury

31^st October 2005