Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee

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.

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:

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.

AGENDA

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee held on 8^th January 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.

To consider a report of the Planning Services Manager.

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: Land at rear of 81 Monkmoor, Shrewsbury. Ref. 07/0014/F

Proposal: Appeal against refusal to grant planning permission for new house.

Decision: Appeal dismissed 22^nd January 2008.

Summary: The Inspector considered that the main issues were impact on the Conservation Area, adequacy of private amenity space and implications for neighbours living conditions. The Inspector concluded that the proposal was unacceptable in all these respects and thus contrary to Development Plan Policy.

Site: 70 Mytton Oak Road, Shrewsbury. Ref. 07/0347/TPO and 07/0349/TPO

Proposal: Appeal against refusal of consent to fell two Corsican Pines, or fell one and lift the crown of the other by 50%.

Decision: Appeal dismissed 16^th January 2008.

Summary: The Secretary of State dismissed the appeal in both respects. The Inspector’s conclusion was that the trees contributed to visual amenity and that concerns about the risk of trees blowing over was very low. Similarly, the Inspector considered that issues of leaf-fall and blockage of drains did not justify allowing the proposals.

Site: Lower Edgebold Farm, Edgebold, Shrewsbury. Ref. 07/0250/F

Proposal: Appeal against refusal of planning permission to allow change of use of agricultural land to provide parking area in connection with existing industrial units and formation of landscaped earth bund.

Decision: Appeal dismissed 21st January 2008.

Summary: The Inspector considered the issue was the effect of the parking on the character and appearance of the countryside. He considered that the proposal would extend the well defined boundary of the site and would introduce an alien feature into an area of attractive countryside, which could not be resolved by landscaping.

Site: 4 Oak Tree Drive, Bayston Hill, Shrewsbury. Ref. 07/0312/TPO

Proposal: Appeal against refusal of consent to fell one oak tree.

Decision: Appeal dismissed 27^th December 2007.

Summary: The Inspector’s conclusion was that the trees contributed to visual amenity, that concerns about the risk of trees blowing over was very low and that the applicant’s concerns over shadowing did not justify allowing the proposals.

The Council Manager will report that the following items 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 items on the grounds that they could involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To consider the exempt report of the Planning Services Manager.