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:

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

(b)  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.

(c)  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:

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

(b)  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;

(c)  if one or more grounds for refusal are lawful and sustainable the application shall be refused on the grounds stated;

(d)  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 - 5th February 2008

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee held on 5th February 2008 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.

4.   UNIT 26 PRIDE HILL, SHREWSBURY 

To consider a report of the Planning Services Manager.

That the proposal contained within the report is accepted and approved in accordance with the conditions previously approved by members but without a S106 agreement.

To consider a report of the Planning Services Manager. 

Recommendation:

That the Committee endorse the decision to refuse the proposal for the reasons given in paragraph 1.0 of the report.

To consider a report of the Planning Services Manager.

It is considered that the use of UPVC is unacceptable in this location, as it would be detrimental to the appearance of the Conservation Area, and if approved, may set a precedent for other applications that would be difficult to resist, albeit all applications must be treated on their own merits.

7.   17 LANGFORD AVENUE, BAYSTON HILL, SHREWSBURY

To consider a report of the Planning Services Manager.

That the revisions shown on drawing no. 8303/1416 03 be accepted as amendments to the original approved application.

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: Holderness, David Avenue, Pontesbury, Shrewsbury. Ref. 07/0902/O

Proposal: Appeal against refusal to grant planning permission for two four bed houses and linked garages following demolition of existing dormer bungalow.

Decision: Appeal dismissed 28th January 2008.

Summary: The application was in outline but included access and siting details. The Inspector considered that the main issues were the impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding residential area and secondly, road safety in terms of the adequacy of David Avenue. The Inspector considered the development would have a large footprint and would occupy much of the site, with only narrow gaps adjacent to existing properties. This could have an over-bearing effect on one adjacent property. He considered that the development would be out of character with its surroundings. Overall, while the Inspector did not accept that the highway objections could be sustained, he considered that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area. Recommended for approval by Officers.

Site: Sundorne Retail Park, Shrewsbury. Ref. 07/0772/ADV

Proposal: Appeal against refusal of advertisement consent for four double sided six sheet poster units, with internal illumination.

Decision: Appeal dismissed 30^th January 2008.

Summary: The Inspector considered the main issue was the impact, including the cumulative impact of the proposed poster units on the site and its surroundings. He felt that the adverts would be very prominent and discordant with the appearance of the area and would create clutter in a generally well ordered area.

Site: Rear of 98-100 Frankwell, Shrewsbury. Ref. 07/0509/F

Proposal: Appeal against refusal to grant planning permission for 3 three bedroomed properties and associated groundworks.

Decision: Appeal allowed 29th January 2008.

Summary: The Inspector considered the main issues were impact on the conservation area, overlooking of neighbours and highway safety. He felt the design and materials was appropriate to the location, did not consider that there was a detrimental impact on neighbours’ amenity and did not consider that the additional traffic from three dwellings would harm highway safety. Recommended for approval by Officers.

Site: Land at rear of Four Crosses Inn, Holyhead Road, Bicton, Shrewsbury. Ref. 07/1126/F

Proposal: Appeal against refusal to grant planning permission for erection of storage and distribution building to include office accommodation and new access.

Decision: Appeal dismissed 8^th February 2008.

Summary: The Inspector considered the main considerations were the clear Local Plan policies for employment and protection of the countryside, to which this application was considered to be contrary. The proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the countryside and the visual appearance of the locality.

Site: Land adjacent to The Villa, Willcott, Nesscliffe, Shrewsbury. Ref. 07/0301/O

Proposal: Appeal against refusal to grant planning permission for three detached houses, including means of access.

Decision: Appeal dismissed 13^th February 2008.

Summary: The Inspector considered that the main issues were the impact of loss of open land in this part of the village, that it would add to ribbon development and pressure to release adjoining land and that the site was outlying in relation to the village and thus unsustainably located in relation to services.

Site: The Crown Inn, 115 Longden Coleham, Shrewsbury. Ref. 06/1551/F and 06/1554/F

Proposal: Appeal against refusal to grant planning permission and Listed Building Consent for erection of single storey all weather eating area.

Decision: Appeals dismissed 1^st February 2008.

Summary: The Inspector considered the main issue was whether the proposal would have a damaging impact for the listed building and character and appearance of the conservation area. He considered that the structure was poorly designed and inappropriate as an addition to a listed building and that the proposal was contrary to policy for Conservation Areas in national guidance and the Local Plan.

Site: Heath Cottage Farm, Ford. Ref. APP/06/0024/ENF

Proposal: Appeal against enforcement notice in relation to change of use of agricultural land for siting of touring caravan for residential purposes and use of structure for ancillary residential storage.

Decision: Appeal dismissed and enforcement notice upheld 7^th February 2008.

Summary: The Inspector considered the main issues were the effect on countryside protection and the weight given to the applicant’s personal circumstances. He considered that the development gave the site a cluttered appearance and was contrary to the objectives of protecting the appearance of the countryside. He also considered that the appellant’s personal preference to live in a rural location was not a sufficient reason to override normal countryside planning policies, in the absence of specific reasons for her needing to live there.

The Council Manager will report that the following item relates to exempt matters under Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and 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 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Exempt reports are not available to the public.

To consider the exempt report of the Planning Services Manager.

25th February 2008

The Guildhall

Shrewsbury

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) 281030.