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.

4. MINUTES – 25^th April 2006

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee held on 25^th April 2006 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 report of the Planning Services Manager.

That the proposed amendments shown on plans referenced TGR 001 Rev 05 received 2^nd May 2006 be approved.

To consider the report of the Planning Services Manager.

That a revocation of the planning permission is not proceeded with and the Planning Services Manager be directed to write to the objector apologising for the oversight and explaining the outcome of the decision taken.

To consider the report of the Planning Services Manager.

That the location of the affordable housing units be accepted and planning permission be granted subject to a S106 Legal Agreement which ensures the provision of the affordable housing units in perpetuity and subject to the conditions set out in the previous report to members on the 24^th April 2006.

To consider the report of the Planning Services Manager.

That the drawing received on the 28^th April 2006 reference 5911/L(9)01 Rev E and 5911/L(9)02 Rev C be accepted as an amendment to the planning permission 03/0943/F approved on the 20^th April 2006.

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.

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: Nos. 9 & 10 Manor Park, Main Road, Pontesbury – Erection of two storey four bed dwelling with integral garage. Application Ref: 04/1324/F

Decision: Appeal allowed 28^th March 2006 (Informal Hearing).

Summary: The main issues were the effect on the character and appearance of the area, and the living conditions of nearby properties. The Inspector considered that the size of the site could accommodate the proposal without detriment to the surrounding area or its immediate setting, and the size, scale, design and layout of the development would not have a detrimental affect on townscape and character of the area, nor be unduly overbearing or prominent on the plot or street scene.

Whilst plot width less than that implemented and the two storey gable would be closer to 21 Manor Park it would not, on balance, be unduly overbearing or prominent or unacceptably compromise living conditions. Agreed to impose condition to prevent additional windows being inserted at first floor level. In relation to 11 Park Road, he considered that the resultant overlooking would not be materially greater than occurs at present. In considering living condition of new occupiers of plots 1 and 2, concluded the proposal would not result in unacceptably dominant outlook for them nor unduly prejudice living conditions. The application was recommended for approval by officers.

Site: Nos. 9 & 10 Manor Park, Main Road, Pontesbury – Erection of two storey four bed dwelling with integral garage. Application Ref: 04/1324/F

Decision: Appeal for costs (by appellant) failed 28^th March 2006 and no award of costs made.

Summary: Application claimed that reason for refusal was in direct contradiction to views expressed by officers based on a 'gut' feeling. Inspector clarified that planning authorities are not bound to adopt the professional or technical advice given by officers, but the planning authority must be able to substantiate any reason for refusal. Inspector found the Council had adequately explained its concerns in both written and verbal evidence, and that the decision to approve previously approved scheme had been finely balanced and that the alterations made to the scheme were found to 'tip the scales' and now make it unacceptable. Whilst Inspector did not agree with the Council that the matter of character and appearance were subjective and could not be qualified with adopted guidelines, he considered the Council had adequately substantiated its reason for refusal and had not caused the appellant to incur unnecessary costs.

Site: Nos. 9 & 10 Manor Park, Main Road, Pontesbury – Erection of two storey four bed dwelling with integral garage. Application Ref: 04/1324/F

Decision: Appeal for costs (by SABC) failed 28^th March 2006 and no award of costs made.

Summary: The Council claimed the appellant had acted unreasonably in requesting an informal hearing and written representations would have been adequate. Inspector concluded that although unlikely that the development would be implemented, the appellant was entitled to assess the planning merits of the proposals as he may chose to implement the appeal scheme.

The Chief Executive will report that the following items relate to exempt matters under Part 1 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.

To consider the exempt report of the Planning Services Manager.

To consider the exempt report of the Planning Services Manager.

To consider the exempt report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Monitoring Officer).

~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~