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.

4.  MINUTES - 22nd April 2008 

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee held on 22nd April 2008 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman.

5.  APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTES

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. 

That the proposed amendments shown on the amended plans received 16th April 2008 and 1st May 2008 be approved.

To consider a report of the Planning Services Manager.

It is recommended that the revisions shown on the plans reference SK 10 Rev C, SK11 Rev C and SK 12 Rev C received 18th April 2008 are accepted as amendments to the approved application.

To consider a report of the Planning Services Manager.

The building in question is an historic building and therefore in existence before the majority of surrounding development. It would not be unreasonable to assume that selecting to live in close proximity to a church may result in some disturbance from bells being rung. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable and as the ringing of the bells proposed is for a relatively limited period of time therefore should be supported in accordance with the details given in the applicants letter of the 31st March 2008.

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: 23/25 Chester Street, Shrewsbury. Ref. 06/1579/F

Proposal: Appeal against refusal to grant planning permission for erection of three storey building to provide 9 flats, formation of parking areas and erection of covered bin store, following demolition of existing commercial buildings.

Decision: Appeal dismissed 15th April 2008.

Summary: The Inspector considered the main issues were the effect on the risks from flooding and Bagley Brook Culvert. The Inspector noted that the floor level increase did not take account of climate change and did not overcome the potential risks from flooding, particularly as potential depth of flood waters would not allow a safe means of access and egress from the building. As such the development did not pass the Exception Test in PPS25 on flooding. He also considered that the proposal would potentially have an adverse impact on Bagley Brook Culvert, which ran under the site.

Site: The Pines, Linley Avenue, Pontesbury. Ref. 07/1052/F

Proposal: Appeal against refusal to grant planning permission for erection of 2 no. semi detached dwellings and 4 no. terraced dwelling houses, including 2 no. low cost units, following demolition of existing bungalow and garage.

Decision: Appeal dismissed 17th April 2008.

Summary: The Inspector considered the main issues were the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the living conditions of future and existing occupiers and the impact on an adjacent ash tree. She considered that the proposed development would appear cramped, uncharacteristically dense and therefore harmfully obtrusive. It would not be of an appropriate scale and character sympathetic to the immediate environment, contrary to Local Plan Policy. The Inspector also considered that the life expectancy of the tree (which was of amenity value) would be compromised. However, she did not consider that the amenity space proposed was unacceptable.

Site: 46 Mardol, Shrewsbury. Ref. 07/1205/VAR

Proposal: Appeal against refusal to grant a variation of condition to allow takeaway to operate with extended opening hours (to midnight Sunday to Thursday and to 03.00 the following morning Friday and Saturday).

Decision: Appeal dismissed 17th April 2008.

Summary: The Inspector considered the main issue was the effect of extended opening on local residential amenity (particularly noise and disturbance and the likelihood of increased incidences of crime and disorder). The Inspector considered that the extended hours would be harmful to the living conditions of local residents and that the existing opening hours represented a reasonable compromise between protecting residential amenity and maintaining a viable business. The Inspector took account of the nature of uses in Mardol, its existing character and the closing times of local commercial premises.

14th May 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.