Committee and Date Item

South Planning Committee 2

27th March 2012 Public

Minutes of the South Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 28th February 2012

2.00 pm – 4.18 pm

Responsible Officer Linda Jeavons Email: Linda.jeavons@.gov.uk Telephone: 01743 252738

PRESENT

Councillor D W Evans (Chairman)

Councillors Mrs C A Barnes, J Hurst-Knight, Mrs C M A Motley, Mrs E M Nicholls, W M Parr, Mrs D M Shineton, Mrs R T D Taylor-Smith, R Tindall, S J West and P M Whiteman.

125. MINUTE SILENCE

The meeting stood in silence as a sign of respect for Mr William (Bill) Parr (Senior), a former Councillor and Mayor of .

126. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies for absence.

127. MINUTES

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the South Planning Committee held on 31st January 2012, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

128. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

There were no public questions.

Contact: Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738 76

South Planning Committee – Minutes of the meeting held on 28th February 2012

129. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The following declarations of interest were made: -

PERSONAL

MEMBER ITEM REASON S J West 11/03686/FUL He lived in but had not predetermined the issue and had made no comments on the application.

Mrs D M Shineton 11/05523/FUL Ward Member

PREDETERMINATION

MEMBER ITEM REASON D W Evans 11/05594/FUL He had predetermined the issue.

He made a statement and left the room and took no part in the consideration of, or voting on, the item.

130. 6 BROOKSIDE CLOSE, SHIFNAL, SHROPSHIRE (11/03686/FUL)

The Principal Planning Officer (Bridgnorth) introduced the application for the erection of an extension and alterations to existing bungalow, and erection of a new detached dwelling following demolition of an existing garage. He confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site, and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. With reference to the drawings and photographs displayed, he explained the layout of the site, and the proposed parking arrangements. He explained that the modifications to the existing bungalow could be made without planning permission as they fell under permitted development; the off street parking provision for three cars per property was more than the parking standards required; and the development was appropriate and would not adversely affect the area.

Mr G Strangwood, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

¾ He would have no objection if the application applied to an extension to the existing dwelling only. ¾ The proposal was out of character with the area; the development would be cramped and overcrowded; and the area would be destroyed by ‘garden grabbing’.

Contact: Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738 77

South Planning Committee – Minutes of the meeting held on 28th February 2012

¾ The entrance door of the new dwelling would be located to the side of the property, which was not in keeping with other properties in the area. ¾ There had been an increase in the number of traffic collisions over the last few years; and this would exacerbate the problem.

In accordance with Rule 6.1 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in Part 4 of ’s Constitution, Councillor Gordon Tonkinson addressed the Committee as the Local Member, during which the following points were raised:

¾ The Officer’s recommendation to permit took no account of the high number of objections. ¾ Despite the demolition of part of the existing dwelling, the application still constituted overcrowding. ¾ The very tight turning area and the loss of a corner site would be detrimental and devalue the area. ¾ The cost implications arising from a planning appeal or judicial review should not be taken into account when making a decision on a planning application.

In response to a question from a Member, the Principal Planning Officer (Bridgnorth) explained that the “Financial Implications” paragraph was an advisory standard paragraph used in all reports; and the financial implications of any decision was not a material planning consideration and should not be “weighed” in Members’ minds when making a decision.

Mr J Sedgemore, the Agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

¾ They had liaised with the Planning Officers and consequently the application had been amended in line with guidance received. ¾ All the works proposed for the original dwelling could be done under permitted development. ¾ The proposal would not constitute overdevelopment; and the two sites would still be two of the largest plots in the area.

Members noted the late representations as detailed in the update sheet circulated prior to the meeting.

In response to comments, the Principal Planning Officer (Bridgnorth) drew Members’ attention to the extent of the area of paving around the property, and the positioning of the dwellings to the curtilage.

In the ensuing debate, Members expressed differing views. Some Members acknowledged that the plot was large, but not sufficiently large enough to accommodate two dwellings; and considered that just an extension to the existing dwelling would be more acceptable. Other Members supported the proposal and commented that the two plots would still be larger than other

Contact: Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738 78

South Planning Committee – Minutes of the meeting held on 28th February 2012

plots in the area; noted the ample off-street parking provision for three cars; and considered it to be in-keeping with the street scene.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to a Section 106 Agreement in relation to the provision of an affordable housing contribution.

131. FIELD HOUSE, BEAMISH LANE, ALBRIGHTON, SHROPSHIRE, WV7 3JJ (11/03904/FUL)

The Principal Planning Officer (Bridgnorth) introduced the application for alterations to the existing vehicular access to include the erection of 2m high gates/piers and a 1m high boundary wall. With reference to the plans and photographs displayed, he explained the proposed positioning of the timber gates and wall, which had been amended in response to concerns expressed by the Parish Council and discussions with a Planning Officer; and drew Members’ attention to the access and highway arrangements. In conclusion, he explained that the retaining wall was the only element of the proposal that required planning permission.

In the ensuing discussion, Members noted that the applicant had amended the scheme in response to the concerns of the Parish Council.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

132. HOLMWOOD, CLIVE AVENUE, , SHROPSHIRE, SY6 7BL (11/04549/FUL)

The Principal Planning Officer () introduced the application for the conversion of an existing building from offices to six residential apartments and the formation of parking facilities. She explained that the building fell within the settlement of Church Stretton, and had previously been a Shropshire County Council children’s home. She confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site, had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area, and noted the proposed parking arrangements.

With reference to the update sheet circulated prior to the meeting, the Principal Planning Officer (Ludlow) drew Members’ attention to the main concerns which related to the number of proposed parking spaces. With reference to drawings displayed, she explained the layout of the site and informed Members that, following discussions with Planning Officers, the applicant had increased the parking provision from six to eight spaces, and any further increase in parking provision would result in the loss of trees.

Contact: Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738 79

South Planning Committee – Minutes of the meeting held on 28th February 2012

Members noted the late representations as detailed in the update sheet circulated at the meeting.

In response to comments, the Principal Planning Officer (Ludlow) confirmed that an additional condition could be added which would ensure the property was not occupied until plans to increase parking provision to 10 parking spaces had been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

With reference to the drawings displayed, and in response to concerns from Members relating to the fenestration arrangements on the northwest elevation, the Principal Planning Officer (Ludlow) explained that conditions were attached to ensure harmonisation of the extension with the existing building; the building did not lend itself to large windows; and the applicant intended to use existing openings with modified joinery.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to:

(i) The completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing elsewhere in Shropshire.

(ii) An additional condition to ensure the property was not occupied until plans to increase parking provision to 10 parking spaces had been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

133. HOLMWOOD, CLIVE AVENUE, CHURCH STRETTON, SHROPSHIRE, SY6 7BL (11/05214/OUT)

The Principal Planning Officer (Ludlow) introduced the application for the erection of one detached dwelling on an area of land located at the south-east end of the grounds of Holmwood, with all matters reserved for future approval. With reference to the indicative site layout plans displayed, she drew Members’ attention to the area of land and the likely form of any development.

Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site, and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

In response to comments, the Principal Planning Officer (Ludlow) confirmed that an additional condition could be added to ensure appropriate boundary treatments between any future dwelling and Holmwood.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to:

Contact: Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738 80

South Planning Committee – Minutes of the meeting held on 28th February 2012

(i) The completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing elsewhere in Shropshire.

(ii) An additional condition requiring the applicant to submit details relating to the boundary treatments between this property and Holmwood.

134. SCOUT HUT, JULIAN ROAD, LUDLOW, SHROPSHIRE (11/05288/FUL)

The Principal Planning Officer (Ludlow) introduced the application for the erection of three dwellings and formation of a new vehicular access and parking areas. She confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site, and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

The Principal Planning Officer (Ludlow) explained that this was a revised scheme following on from a planning appeal decision. The applicant had sought to address the issues identified by the Planning Inspector and had relocated and reduced the height of the terrace, and had reduced the height of the buildings to two-storey. She explained that the scheme allowed for one parking space for each dwelling; and, although the properties would not be affordable in terms of the Council’s affordable homes policy, the dwellings would sit at the lower end of the property market.

Mr W Francis, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

¾ He acknowledged that there would be buildings on this site but considered this to be a missed opportunity to create something in keeping with the area. ¾ He acknowledged that the roof height had been reduced, but still considered that it would be overbearing. ¾ Inadequate parking provision - Julian Road was well used and already congested because of the lack of off-street parking. ¾ He considered that the proposal was inappropriate development and would have an adverse impact on the living conditions and general amenity of neighbouring residents.

In response to concerns expressed by Members, the Principal Planning Officer (Ludlow) explained that Condition 6 would ensure that doors and windows would be in keeping with a Conservation Area; and as the two end properties had been designed with gable end windows, the middle dwelling would have a small window to the left of the front door to ensure adequate light infiltration.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the provision of the required affordable housing contribution.

Contact: Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738 81

South Planning Committee – Minutes of the meeting held on 28th February 2012

135. GAINSBOROUGH FARM BUNGALOW, HILTON, BRIDGNORTH, WV15 5NZ (11/05416/FUL)

The Principal Planning Officer (Bridgnorth) introduced the application for the erection of a detached double garage. With reference to the plans displayed, he explained the layout of the site, and drew Members’ attention to the footprint and location of the proposed garage.

Members noted that the siting and dimensions of the proposed garage would require little alteration for it to be constructed under permitted development rights and without the need to obtain planning permission.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

136. LAND ADJACENT TO WAYSIDE COTTAGE, ASHFORD CARBONELL, LUDLOW, SHROPSHIRE, SY8 4BX (11/05428/FUL)

The Principal Planning Officer (Ludlow) introduced the application for the erection of an affordable dwelling and garage/store, alteration to existing vehicular and pedestrian access, and siting of a temporary caravan. She explained that the site fell within the Ashford Carbonell Conservation Area; and the application site formed part of the garden associated with Wayside Cottage. She confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site, and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. During their site visit, Members had also walked through the village and had noted the location of the stone-walling; the surrounding open spaces; design and styles of other dwellings in the surrounding area; and the special character of the Ashford Carbonell Conservation Area.

The Principal Planning Officer (Ludlow) explained that, following a revision, the floor area had been reduced, and the dwelling would now be positioned in line with the frontage of Thrale Cottage. In conclusion, she confirmed that the applicant had met the requirements of the Affordable Housing Exception Policy.

Mr J Cowen, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

¾ He questioned how this application could be granted based on the strong public opinion against the application. ¾ It was implausible that the applicant was considered to be local. ¾ The Supplementary Planning Document stated that too much infill development, however small, would erode the character of an area. ¾ Wayside Cottage was an important feature in the Conservation Area. ¾ The Officer’s report was not balanced.

Contact: Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738 82

South Planning Committee – Minutes of the meeting held on 28th February 2012

Mr Robert Tilt, representing Ashford Carbonell Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

¾ He referred Members to the high number of objections to the proposal. ¾ In accordance with the Localism Bill, local people should have a voice and be heard.

In accordance with Rule 6.1 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in Part 4 of Shropshire Council’s Constitution, Councillor Martin Taylor-Smith addressed the Committee as the Local Member, during which the following points were raised:

¾ He acknowledged that the applicant met the eligibility criteria for affordable housing based on the current criteria; however, there was no time limit attached to the length of time someone had to live in an area before they could demonstrate a local connection. This was currently under review. ¾ He drew Members’ attention to the Ashford Carbonell Village Design Statement (VDS), referred to at paragraph 6.1.20 of the report, which referred to the needs of the local community and not an individual. ¾ He stated that infilling development had to some extent undermined development in the village in the past; and it was important that due regard was paid to the few remaining open areas. ¾ With reference to the VDS, he drew Members’ attention to the following statement: “The Courts have recently confirmed that planning decisions in respect of development carried out in a conservation area must give a high priority to the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. If any proposed development would conflict with that objective, there will be a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission.” Based on this, he asked Members to form a judgement and give due consideration as to whether the need of a community formed the basis of a planning permission and was it based on community need or individual need.

In response to questions from Members, Martin Taylor-Smith confirmed that Ashford Carbonell had made provision for affordable housing in both its Place Plan and SAMDev; a Housing Needs Survey had been done in conjunction with neighbouring parishes, with the majority of affordable housing provision being in the Ludlow area; and the catchment area for the new school covered the south of Ludlow, and would include five/six children maximum from Ashford Carbonell.

Mr S Angell, the applicant, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

¾ He had demonstrated the need for affordable housing; had lived in the area all of his life; and his parents permanently resided nearby. ¾ His daughter lived with him and he hoped to send her to the new school.

Contact: Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738 83

South Planning Committee – Minutes of the meeting held on 28th February 2012

¾ He ran his business from home. ¾ He was aware of the resistance to this proposal and, accordingly, had adapted the design following advice.

In response to questions from Members, he explained that it was not a sacred site and burial ground; no pre-application advice had been sought with regard to the initial scheme, but the amended scheme had been finalised following negotiations with Planning Officers; there had been no involvement with a Conservation Officer; he bought Wayside Cottage to be closer to his parents and brother, and be in an area where he had grown up; the only heating came from storage heaters, which was expensive; and he wished to separate his working and family life.

In response to a question from a Member, the Principal Planning Officer (Ludlow) explained that although South Shropshire District Council did not have a set limit for extensions per se, it would critically examine any extension over 50% of the size of the original dwelling to ensure it would not dominate or detract from the character of the building. Shropshire Council did not have a maximum set limit, but each application should be assessed to ensure it remained in keeping with the original.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to ensure the dwelling remains affordable.

137. BARDLEY COTTAGE, STOTTESDON, SHROPSHIRE, DY14 8NF (11/05523/FUL)

The Principal Planning Officer (Bridgnorth) introduced the application for the erection of a two-storey extension to the side elevation. He confirmed Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site, and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. With reference to drawings displayed, he explained the layout of the existing cottage and the proposed extension, and drew Members’ attention to the elevations.

The Principal Planning Officer (Bridgnorth) explained that the Bridgnorth District Council policy limiting extensions to no more than 75% of the original dwelling was no longer applicable; however, Core Strategy Policy CS6 and the Supplementary Planning Document on the Type and Affordability of Housing indicated that the size of dwellings should be regulated to maintain a mix of dwellings and retain the character of an area, and the creation of large dwellings should be avoided to negate the problems of affordability.

Mr J O’Leary, the applicant, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

Contact: Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738 84

South Planning Committee – Minutes of the meeting held on 28th February 2012

¾ The Parish Council supported the application. ¾ The proposal was for a modest increase to create a three-bedroomed property. ¾ The proposal would restore the aesthetics of the original cottage.

In the ensuing debate, Members noted that the Parish Council supported the application; there were no neighbouring buildings; it was a large expanse of land; and the extension would improve the aesthetics of the cottage.

RESOLVED:

That, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be granted.

The meeting adjourned at 3.50 pm and reconvened at 3.52 pm.

138. LAND ADJACENT TO 22 BROOK ROAD, , SHROPSHIRE, SY7 943 (11/05594/FUL)

(The Vice Chairman took the Chair for this item.)

The Principal Planning Officer (Ludlow) introduced the application for the erection of a detached house and garage. She confirmed Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site, and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. Members had particularly noted the relationship of the proposal with the existing dwelling at 22 Brook Road, and the access arrangements. To address concerns relating to privacy, she explained that the proposal had been amended and re- orientated, which now meant that the gable end would face the existing dwelling.

Members noted the late representations as detailed in the update sheet circulated prior to the meeting.

Mr G Tipton, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

¾ The proposed site currently formed part of his garden; and the report made no mention of the lawful use of the site. ¾ If approved, the proposed dwelling would sit only 7m from his property – this would result in a reduction of light and he would be unable to see any sky from the ground floor. ¾ He would have no where to park. ¾ The proposal would have a substantial negative impact on his amenities and would be detrimental to the character of the area.

Contact: Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738 85

South Planning Committee – Minutes of the meeting held on 28th February 2012

In response to a question, Mr Tipton explained that he had lived at 22 Brook Road for four years, and rented the area of land concerned on an annual basis.

The Chairman, Councillor D Evans, having predetermined the issue, made a statement and left the room. He stated that this was not a suitable garden plot for development; the land was contaminated and fell within 10m of a nearby brook; the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby residents; and the lawful use of this piece of land had not been established.

In response to questions from Members, and with reference to the drawings displayed, the Principal Planning Officer (Ludlow) confirmed the area of land which the applicant claimed to own; and explained that the lawfulness of the use of this land was a civil matter and not a material planning concern.

In the ensuing debate, Members commented and expressed concerns relating to the distance between the existing and proposed dwellings; and suggested that the application be deferred to enable the applicant to give consideration to the re-siting of the property.

RESOLVED:

That the application be deferred to enable the applicant to give due consideration to the re-siting of the property.

(The Chairman returned to the meeting and resumed the Chair.)

139. SCHEDULE OF APPEALS AND APPEAL DECISIONS AS AT 28TH FEBRUARY 2012

Members considered the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the Southern area as at 28th February 2012.

RESOLVED:

That the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the Southern area as at 28th February 2012 be noted.

140. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

RESOLVED:

That it be noted that the next meeting of the South Planning Committee would be held at 2.00 pm on Tuesday, 27th March 2012, venue to be confirmed.

CHAIRMAN………………………………………DATE…..………………………………..

Contact: Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738 86